Google and P&G

I’m sure most of you saw the front page WSJ article last week about Google and P&G. This is of great interest to me because it gets to the heart of one of my underlying hypotheses about why digital advertising will continue to grow at the expense of other media.

Right now brand marketers are way under-invested in digital marketing. All you have to do is see the chart below. TV has less than 20% of the time but 44% of the spending. Marketers are over invested in traditional media as compared to time spent there.

Sources: TNS Media Intelligence & Forrester Research

This has to change. The challenge, as I have learned from several of our client CMO’s is that it is really hard to spend money on digital, while it is relatively easy to shovel it out the door on 30 sec. TV spots.

We (agencies, researchers, etc.) need to work a lot harder to bring ideas to our clients on how to spend money and leverage programs via digital channels. As John Bell famously asks, if I spend another $100k on social media, what do I get?

Post navigation

7 Responses to Google and P&G

[…] ability to dominate perception is quickly eroding. (Update, Dec. 3: Tom O’Brien makes this point in a very practical way.) To have insight into stable future earnings in an era where common perception is formed by […]

I posted a blog looking back from 2030 to 2009 to discuss how the economy was the catalyst for change in how advertising works. One of the things I brought up is the idea that “no one ever got fired for buy TV” was a joke. If I owned any large corporation and it was suggested that I sink a majority of my budget solely into TV they would be fired. TV has its place, it’s right next to online, Social Media, web video, email, mobile, experiential, etc. You can see it here: